HS2 and North Wales

[Chester1]

I doubt this could be justified by a BCR but it would be good politics to say HS2 was being extended to Wales, especially since Crewe-Holyhead line goes through several marginal seats. Obviously as my username suggests I have a vest interest! What would the cost be of upgrading all of Crewe-Holyhead to 110mph? I believe atm its 90mph Crewe-Chester, 70-80mph Chester-Bangor and 60mph Bangor-Holyhead. I suggest 110mph because its the maximium speed of classic compatible HS trains on the WCML and I reckon straighting out Crewe-Holyhead to do 125mph or more would be incredibly expensive. It could justify 1 train per 2 hours (replacing the existing Virgin service), maybe hourly if Wales and Borders franchise services were reduced. Crewe-Holyhead is about 110 miles, with stops Id guess it would take 90 minutes, which would reduce London-Holyhead from 3 hours 55 mins to 2 hours 25 mins. Also, which commuter trains can do 110mph? I know some EMUs can / soon will. Same speed would solve allot of time table issues.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Crewe-Holyhead is laid out as quite a fast main line as far as about Abergele, where the coastline begins to dominate.
It used to be a 75mph route at far as Bangor, then 60mph on Anglesey.
It is now 90mph Chester-Crewe (apart from the reverse curves at Beeston Castle - 75), and then 75-90 on to Llandudno Jn (75 through most stations).
Slow through Bangor-Menai Bridge and then 75 on Anglesey.
Very slow through Chester.

The last upgrade west of Chester (around 2000) was a delayed BR plan to allow 90mph for Class 158s, and was a cheapo scheme which did not do a comprehensive job (hence the 75 through stations and Saltney-Connah's Quay).
The semaphore signalling doesn't help.
The upcoming resignalling west of Connah's Quay is supposed to allow for 100mph where possible, but I'm not sure any line speed upgrades are planned.
I don't think the structures are fit for much faster, and the nature of the route west of Abergele rules it out pretty much.

Electrification might cost £300m going on estimates elsewhere.
There would be some interesting obstacles (Conwy/Britannia Bridges), and the structures through Chester.
Reputedly, the most troublesome section would be Crewe-Chester with all the original low round-arch bridges.

Most long-distance EMU types from now on will be 110mph-capable.
Currently it's classes 350/387/395, and Pendolinos of course.
Personally, I think it will only happen if Westminster and Cardiff Bay go with it as an act of faith for North Wales rather than a business case (Scotland will be the same, fair dos etc).

 

[edwin_m]

Wasn't NR doing a study on line speed upgrades after re-signalling?

I assume £300K for electrification is slip of the finger, £300M seems more likely!

Nothing then to stop a classic compatible running to Chester or Holyhead, though it may have to couple to something else at Crewe because of a lack of capacity on HS2 into London.

 

[NotATrainspott]

HS2 Ltd haven't modelled Chester and North Wales because the line would need to be electrified for them to run services, and they're not at all interested in paying for that electrification. If Network Rail get around to electrifying it at some point there's no real reason why you couldn't run the services. I don't see the HS2 classic-compatibles needing any extra gauge clearance works beyond the ones done for the Pendolino drags so the only other expense involved is buying the extra trainset or two needed to run the service. With other improvements, e.g. enhancements on the WCML to Scotland, the number of classic-compatible sets needed for the currently planned service will decrease so it might not be necessary to buy any more trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Going back to the days of yore on the North Wales coast line, does anyone know what was the fastest speed ever achieved by a passenger train on that line.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Looking at it from a political point of view if the current Govt put it forward for CP6 it immediately pulls the rug under the feet from the opposition party's in Wales complaints that HS2 doesn't benefit Wales and there should be a Barnet formula consequential, also it's probably cheaper than a Barnet formula hand out. Plus there's some Conservative/potential conservative seats it can benefit.

 

[Camden]

But there are no train paths on the HS2 main line, and Stoke still yet to be placated with a classic compatible service.

Perhaps the additional answer is to supply Liverpool with a proper service via Warrington which would provide an additional path. Coming across such lengthy classic line through Wales I doubt coupling to another train would work. It's now clear Liverpool will likely need four hundred metres regardless of route or classic compatibility, so not even sure what services a Welsh portion could couple to.

With HS2 services running from Crewe it will be interesting to see how many people remain on board classic services from Wales and Chester after Crewe, as I would have thought most people would switch.

 

[NotATrainspott]

But there are no train paths on the HS2 main line, and Stoke still yet to be placated with a classic compatible service.

Perhaps the additional answer is to supply Liverpool with a proper service via Warrington which would provide an additional path. Coming across such lengthy classic line through Wales I doubt coupling to another train would work. It's now clear Liverpool will likely need four hundred metres regardless of route or classic compatibility, so not even sure what services a Welsh portion could couple to.

With HS2 services running from Crewe it will be interesting to see how many people remain on board classic services from Wales and Chester after Crewe, as I would have thought most people would switch.

The assumptions report has a predicted service pattern and out of the services running to the North West, the two Liverpool and the one Preston service are 200m classic-compatibles. That doesn't include the two Heathrow/HS1 paths which won't be otherwise allocated. If the Crewe Hub proposals include 400m platforms, then it would be possible for Chester/North Wales to be served by splitting off from another service. Even if the Liverpool services will eventually become 400m long captive trains, the Preston classic service cannot and so would always be available as a split/join partner.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Going back to the days of yore on the North Wales coast line, does anyone know what was the fastest speed ever achieved by a passenger train on that line.

I used to use it pretty frequently in the 1970s to early 1990s and, at least according to the second hand of my wrist watch, the 75mph limit was pretty much respected. Possibly in steam days the driver of the Irish Mail might have pushed things a bit higher, especially on the straighter bits east of Abergele.

In my day, the fastest things on that line seemed to be the Freightliners which always seemed to hammer along at up to 70mph or more and without all the stops that most of the passenger trains had.

In response to the original poster, if (big IF, I know) the line were to be electrified, presumably Pendolinos could get through some of the curvature-related restrictions a bit quicker than the regular trains?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I assume £300K for electrification is slip of the finger, £300M seems more likely!

Indeed. What's a few 000s more or less!

In response to the original poster, if (big IF, I know) the line were to be electrified, presumably Pendolinos could get through some of the curvature-related restrictions a bit quicker than the regular trains?

EPS would be workable in places (although there's a lot of straight).
I just get the feeling that Chester and beyond will be serviced by classic trains via Rugby rather than via HS2 (they have to go somewhere).
If so, EPS would be quite useful.

 

[Holly]

Building a completely new route Crewe-Chester is entirely feasible. The green fields route exists for a new right of way with no tunneling and no major bridges to build.

So building a GC gauge HS standard new right of way Crewe-Chester would, one might hope, eliminate the need to electrify of the old (existing) route. Crewe-Chester is just about as inexpensive as building any new route of that distance within England could be. And there is space at Chester Station for new platforms. Space at Hooton too if you want room for a large car park at the terminus.

It is acknowledged elsewhere that Crewe-Chester would be one of the more difficult/expensive routes to electrify, so saving the cost of doing that and putting the money into an HS line would have benefits.

 

[The Planner]

Won't happen in most of our lifetimes though.

 

[Tobbes]

Building a completely new route Crewe-Chester is entirely feasible. The green fields route exists for a new right of way with no tunneling and no major bridges to build.

I can only see a new HSR if there's serious Euro funding behind a Holyhead - Dun Laoghaire tunnel and Belfast - Dublin - London - Paris HSR under TEN-T. Could do Euston - Heuston in about 2 hours, though.....

 

[snowball]

Electrification might cost £300K going on estimates elsewhere.
There would be some interesting obstacles (Conwy/Britannia Bridges)

It's not obvious that the bridge at Conwy is necessarily a problem. Anyone know its internal dimensions?

In case you've forgotten, Britannia Bridge has not been a tubular bridge for over 40 years. I think the road deck will undoubtedly have been built with electrification clearance.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I can only see a new HSR if there's serious Euro funding behind a Holyhead - Dun Laoghaire tunnel and Belfast - Dublin - London - Paris HSR under TEN-T. Could do Euston - Heuston in about 2 hours, though.....

It could also depend on whether the UK votes to stay in the EU. Brussels traditionally has been very keen to spread the "benefits" of the EU to the extremities of the EU. Assuming the Irish economy were to continue to boom there could be call for better surface transport links between Ireland and the rest of the EU, a project which could then be heavily funded by the EU.

The fast Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead ferry service is very popular with the trucking industry so if the route were cleared for GC gauge there could be the prospect of putting some of the prospect of putting some of the freight traffic on piggyback trains, perhaps even eventually through to mainland Europe. I can't see a fixed link, it would be simply too expensive I suspect.

 

[Chester1]

Crewe-Holyhead is laid out as quite a fast main line as far as about Abergele, where the coastline begins to dominate.
It used to be a 75mph route at far as Bangor, then 60mph on Anglesey.
It is now 90mph Chester-Crewe (apart from the reverse curves at Beeston Castle - 75), and then 75-90 on to Llandudno Jn (75 through most stations).
Slow through Bangor-Menai Bridge and then 75 on Anglesey.
Very slow through Chester.

The last upgrade west of Chester (around 2000) was a delayed BR plan to allow 90mph for Class 158s, and was a cheapo scheme which did not do a comprehensive job (hence the 75 through stations and Saltney-Connah's Quay).
The semaphore signalling doesn't help.
The upcoming resignalling west of Connah's Quay is supposed to allow for 100mph where possible, but I'm not sure any line speed upgrades are planned.
I don't think the structures are fit for much faster, and the nature of the route west of Abergele rules it out pretty much.

Electrification might cost £300K going on estimates elsewhere.
There would be some interesting obstacles (Conwy/Britannia Bridges), and the structures through Chester.
Reputedly, the most troublesome section would be Crewe-Chester with all the original low round-arch bridges.

Most long-distance EMU types from now on will be 110mph-capable.
Currently it's classes 350/387/395, and Pendolinos of course.
Personally, I think it will only happen if Westminster and Cardiff Bay go with it as an act of faith for North Wales rather than a business case (Scotland will be the same, fair dos etc).

I agree it would only happen for political reasons not because of a business case. Sounds like the top timing possible from a upgrade is about 105 to 110 mins from Crewe to Holyhead (compared with 135 mins today).

The assumptions report has a predicted service pattern and out of the services running to the North West, the two Liverpool and the one Preston service are 200m classic-compatibles. That doesn't include the two Heathrow/HS1 paths which won't be otherwise allocated. If the Crewe Hub proposals include 400m platforms, then it would be possible for Chester/North Wales to be served by splitting off from another service. Even if the Liverpool services will eventually become 400m long captive trains, the Preston classic service cannot and so would always be available as a split/join partner.

I think there are 18 paths per hour. Manchester 3, Birmingham 3, Sheffield 2, Leeds 2, Liverpool 2, Newcastle 2, Preston 1, Scotland 2 , total is 17. With Liverpool and Preston trains being 200m thats 7 slots per two hours for coupling in Crewe or Birmingham. North Wales would need 1 which would replace the 5 coach voyager service with double the capacity.

Indeed. What's a few 000s more or less!



EPS would be workable in places (although there's a lot of straight).
I just get the feeling that Chester and beyond will be serviced by classic trains via Rugby rather than via HS2 (they have to go somewhere).
If so, EPS would be quite useful.

Do we actually need fast WCML services north of Birmingham? If North Wales and Stoke (via Stockport) recieve HS classic compatible services then a Birmingham - London fast WCML could serve all the important remaining destinations that miss out on HS services.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think there are 18 paths per hour. Manchester 3, Birmingham 3, Sheffield 2, Leeds 2, Liverpool 2, Newcastle 2, Preston 1, Scotland 2 , total is 17. With Liverpool and Preston trains being 200m thats 7 slots per two hours for coupling in Crewe or Birmingham. North Wales would need 1 which would replace the 5 coach voyager service with double the capacity.

There's no Sheffield 2tph, as the station is a though station and there is no spur. The Leeds trains stop there and there are 3 of them every hour, totalling 16 paths south of Birmingham every hour.

 

[po8crg]

I think there are 18 paths per hour. Manchester 3, Birmingham 3, Sheffield 2, Leeds 2, Liverpool 2, Newcastle 2, Preston 1, Scotland 2 , total is 17. With Liverpool and Preston trains being 200m thats 7 slots per two hours for coupling in Crewe or Birmingham. North Wales would need 1 which would replace the 5 coach voyager service with double the capacity.

Manchester 3, Birmingham 3, Leeds 3, Liverpool 2, Newcastle 2, Preston 1, Scotland 2 is 16.

400m trains: Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Scotland (11).
200m trains: Liverpool, Newcastle, Preston (5).

Originally there were 2 paths for trains to the Heathrow spur and to the HS1 link, both of which have been dropped, so there are two spare paths

I'd expect the Preston service to be extended to Blackpool North (given that Preston-Blackpool is being electrified - understandably HS2 didn't want to plan services that would require electrification, or else it would end up in their budget). This could be coupled/uncoupled in Crewe to another train.

I suspect that if Selby-Hull gets electrified, there will be at least one train to Hull coupled to a Newcastle service (joining at Meadowhall, perhaps?) and I doubt they'd want to couple a train headed for the western branch to a Newcastle train on the eastern branch anyway - that's just asking for delays.

One possible train is a Stockport-Stoke-Stafford train (probably originating in the conventional platforms at Manchester Piccadilly).

Another possible is one to Chester, or beyond to Llandudno Junction or Holyhead.

These two, plus the two Liverpool and one Preston/Blackpool trains could be coupled and split at Crewe into three paths further south, so there's no extra paths needed to run those trains.

I suspect that, if there are spare paths, then the operator will try to avoid doing too much coupling of units, because the additional complexity raises the risk of delays.

 

[6Gman]

Going back to the days of yore on the North Wales coast line, does anyone know what was the fastest speed ever achieved by a passenger train on that line.

In his "Reflections on a Railway Career" JM Dunn describes a run by the 7.50pm (19.50) Crewe - Llandudno on 13th July 1953. Maximum speed claimed/recorded was 98mph east of Flint, but also 96 between Holywell and Prestatyn. The loco was Black Five 44741 of my home shed (6G); the Driver was Thomas/ Tommy/ Twm Gill. He does not name the Fireman, which is a shame! It could have been my father, who certainly fired for Twm Gill at that period.

 

[Camden]

Most unlikely Liverpool's trains will now be only 200 metres, which leaves Preston, however what may happen with Crewe is that more services may stop there. The Scottish trains are 200 metre classic compatibles, not 400 metre HS2 trains.

The big question will be whether the line will be considered reliable enough for trains to couple. The HS2 main line is running at capacity, so you can't have delays hence the reason for the new network. Over a hundred miles of classic compatible running, over track which is prone to weather incidents, sounds like it could introduce significant issues.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Most unlikely Liverpool's trains will now be only 200 metres, which leaves Preston, however what may happen with Crewe is that more services may stop there. The Scottish trains are 200 metre classic compatibles, not 400 metre HS2 trains.

The big question will be whether the line will be considered reliable enough for trains to couple. The HS2 main line is running at capacity, so you can't have delays hence the reason for the new network. Over a hundred miles of classic compatible running, over track which is prone to weather incidents, sounds like it could introduce significant issues.

Liverpool can't have 400m trains if it doesn't have a captive terminus, which is not yet planned. The TransNorth/HS3/whatever thing has now meant that such a spur is being properly costed out and planned, I believe.

Scotland would have two services an hour, made up of two 200m classic-compatibles joined together. These would split and join at Carstairs to serve Edinburgh Waverley (and Haymarket) and Glasgow Central equally.

The Thameslink project will involve getting used to having trains from a wide range of different lines slotting together at the core with mere seconds to spare, so some of that experience will have an input in the HS2 scheme. HS2 classic-compatibles would have priority over other services on classic tracks, and the routes they would run on will likely be priorities for enhancements and renewals.

 

[gazthomas]

In his "Reflections on a Railway Career" JM Dunn describes a run by the 7.50pm (19.50) Crewe - Llandudno on 13th July 1953. Maximum speed claimed/recorded was 98mph east of Flint, but also 96 between Holywell and Prestatyn. The loco was Black Five 44741 of my home shed (6G); the Driver was Thomas/ Tommy/ Twm Gill. He does not name the Fireman, which is a shame! It could have been my father, who certainly fired for Twm Gill at that period.

In the late 1980s I did the lunchtime Euston to Holyhead from Chester non-stop to Llandudno Junction in 28 minutes for 44.25 miles a 94 mph average. How was this possible?

 

[6Gman]

In the late 1980s I did the lunchtime Euston to Holyhead from Chester non-stop to Llandudno Junction in 28 minutes for 44.25 miles a 94 mph average. How was this possible?

Perhaps Tommy Gill had come out of retirement?

Seriously, I think the blanket 75mph restriction was widely stretched.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Seeing as the main problem with electrifying Crewe to Chester is the low bridges, would it be possible to use trains equipped with a small battery so that they wouldn't get stuck without power by one of these bridges and to electrify the rest of the route? I asked this here in general on this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=118370 but didn't really get a reason why it wouldn't be possible

 

[snowball]

Battery trains have been discussed in about 10 threads over the last year or so. If you do a search you'll find lots of discussion.

 

[swt_passenger]

Seeing as the main problem with electrifying Crewe to Chester is the low bridges, would it be possible to use trains equipped with a small battery so that they wouldn't get stuck without power by one of these bridges and to electrify the rest of the route? I asked this here in general on this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=118370 but didn't really get a reason why it wouldn't be possible

That was because many of us were seeing the same discussion being started very regularly about battery trains, which is why I gave you the links to other threads soon after you asked the question.

I'm sorry if that's not what you want, but as snowball has just pointed out it's been coming up a bit too often.

 

[absolutelymilk]

That was because many of us were seeing the same discussion being started very regularly about battery trains, which is why I gave you the links to other threads soon after you asked the question.

Having just gone through both of those threads, I still can't find a practical reason why (assuming the cost comes down a bit over the next few years) that they couldn't be used as an emergency in case coasting through tunnels/bridges left them without power at the wrong point (as the Class 419s did, which were introduced in 1959 and even then could go for 20-30mins on battery power)

Apologies if there is a clear reason why this wouldn't work and it is necessary to rebuild all the bridges along the route, but it just seems an obvious option to me

 

[NotATrainspott]

Having just gone through both of those threads, I still can't find a practical reason why (assuming the cost comes down a bit over the next few years) that they couldn't be used as an emergency in case coasting through tunnels/bridges left them without power at the wrong point (as the Class 419s did, which were introduced in 1959 and even then could go for 20-30mins on battery power)

Apologies if there is a clear reason why this wouldn't work and it is necessary to rebuild all the bridges along the route, but it just seems an obvious option to me

The New Tube for London train will have enough onboard battery power to limp to the next station (which won't be very far away, mind). If that can be fitted to a tube-gauge train, I can't forsee any reason why the same capability could not be fitted to arbitrary modern EMUs. The new IEP fleet all have something similar but instead of using a battery, each electric-only train has a single diesel engine (since it's the same carriage design whether it's an electric or bi-mode version of the IEP, so it's trivial to include it) so that it can limp to the next station (or track access point).

 

[absolutelymilk]

The New Tube for London train will have enough onboard battery power to limp to the next station (which won't be very far away, mind). If that can be fitted to a tube-gauge train, I can't forsee any reason why the same capability could not be fitted to arbitrary modern EMUs. The new IEP fleet all have something similar but instead of using a battery, each electric-only train has a single diesel engine (since it's the same carriage design whether it's an electric or bi-mode version of the IEP, so it's trivial to include it) so that it can limp to the next station (or track access point).

Is this just in case there is a power failure or is this designed to be used regularly?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is this just in case there is a power failure or is this designed to be used regularly?

It's designed to be used in case of a power failure which doesn't trap the train and it could be used to shunt into non-electrified sidings. I don't believe it's an ability which is to be used every day, given that all the depots that can be served by electric-only IEPs will be wired from the beginning, but it could make life easier later on if there are changes. The Northern 319s, for example, have to be pushed around their home depot by a diesel shunter because it wasn't wired.